Who will get the first copyright infringement notice??

Forums › Off topic › Who will get the first copyright infringement notice??

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#522420 17-Sep-2011 18:22

its more like usa tc media grabbed the big green jelly beans and throw it at the people
on the air waves and the person took a slice of it with their DVR and had a suck of it
and decide they had enough of it and upload it to web to share to everyone to see if
they like the favour too

think when they learn what the people demand and offer it for 10 to 40cent nz a download
of a tv episode in a format without dmr xvid they they find they be making
more money and p2p will die of except the few that wont still buy it

the business model needs to change one day maybe..

be good if could watch it and then decide if worth the 40 to 1 dollar too

i still can see how they can claim copy right once they release it live on the air waves in any country

its liek saying have a jelly bean but we want it back after you sucked it

alexcc

154 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#522472 17-Sep-2011 21:27

Lol a friend of mine got a notice from downloading the new Harry potter film.... What an idiot....

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#522478 17-Sep-2011 22:04

he obviously didnt read this place or google the web before hand

its hardly new - its been on the web for ages - day it came out

mind you its never be clearly spelt out
no like a tv ad with bullets was shown to kiwis

anyhow anyhow it seems if you
get 2 notices and then wait 9 months they get cleared of his record

also theres a 30 day wait between notices

and rapidshare and direct or cache servers are exempt

since the media coy can ask its removal direct from them

guess they want to know the uploaders ip which no doubt he would
be using a fake ip no doubt

rapidshare wont release downloader details reading
their terms due to germanys privacy laws

alexcc

154 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#522485 17-Sep-2011 22:17

kiwigeek1: he obviously didnt read this place or google the web before hand

its hardly new - its been on the web for ages - day it came out

mind you its never be clearly spelt out
no like a tv ad with bullets was shown to kiwis

anyhow anyhow it seems if you
get 2 notices and then wait 9 months they get cleared of his record

also theres a 30 day wait between notices

and rapidshare and direct or cache servers are exempt

since the media coy can ask its removal direct from them

guess they want to know the uploaders ip which no doubt he would
be using a fake ip no doubt

rapidshare wont release downloader details reading
their terms due to germanys privacy laws

Lol yeah I tried to warn him and told him that if he was going to continue using torrents then he should at least use a VPN but he wouldn't have it. Serves him right :P

This new/updated law is restricted to peer-to-peer technologies, so of course rapidshare and direct or cache servers are exempt. As you said there was already a way for copyright holders to ask for removal of their content so it was exempt from the law.

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#522488 17-Sep-2011 22:30

what i meant if he knew that non p2p excempt then he could of found alternative is what i meant
googling you be amazed how many dont understand the new law and whats allowed
after all ive download stuff thinking its something else it
it ends up being a rude porn movie not what the title said
be darn unhappy to get a notice for something like that

but i wonder if they set up traps too -- fake torrent sites or fake files.. how fair is that
we just dont know what they are collecting

really I thought the isps would of sent out a email to all members like so

the new law is now in affect
that covers p2p and rights holders claims

- The law only covers p2p technologies e.g. utorrent , azure , bittoreent

where illegal content is sourced

- After 2 strikes or notices a wait period of 9 months
the strikes are voided

- you can only receive 1 infringement per rights holder
in 30 day period

thats means if several rights holders put claims in that
will be counted as 2 or more strikes ( but not entirely sure there my self)

- 3 stirke your details are given to rights holder and a fine of 15000 dollars nz could
be sort in a court of law

etc etc

RIght holders infringements

- they must have a local nz office to process the claims

- they need a bank in nz

- they have to pay $25 processing fee per claim

- they wont recieve details until the infringer has 3 strikes

etc etc

now thats nicer in lay persons terms teens cna understand

none of the law and long winded law talk FUGs you get all ove rthe place
that no one reads

fine print.. phew

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#522489 17-Sep-2011 22:32

kiwigeek1:

also theres a 30 day wait between notices

what does this mean? let say 10 'illegal' downloads in one day, will you receive all 3 notices at once or this will be sent in the next 3 months?

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

alexcc

154 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#522493 17-Sep-2011 22:41

kiwigeek1: what i meant if he knew that non p2p excempt then he could of found alternative is what i meant
googling you be amazed how many dont understand the new law and whats allowed
after all ive download stuff thinking its something else it
it ends up being a rude porn movie not what the title said
be darn unhappy to get a notice for something like that

Yeah I know that's why I called him an idiot. The amount of people that I have heard asking if it's safe to use youtube to mp3 converters after this law..... 0_0 I'm sorry but Ewwww ripping songs from youtube....

kiwigeek1: I wonder if they set up traps too -- fake torrent sites or fake files.. how fair is that
we just dont know what they are collecting

How would that work? If you're downloading fake files they're not the copy protected files you think you'd be downloading and therefore wouldn't be illegal. The closest it will get to that is when an anti priacy organisation connects to a torrent to collect ip address they usually send bad/corrupted data to peers.

It's easy enough as it is for them to collect ip address through torrents, but some fake trackers could possible be created...

kiwigeek1: Really I thought the isps would of sent out a email to all members

I enquired to slingshot about something similar, it was about them contacting everyone when new plans are available. The response I got was that emailing every customer would take a lot of time and resources, Plus why would ISPs send out an email instructing customers on how to Illegally download content without getting caught?

nakedmolerat:
kiwigeek1:

also theres a 30 day wait between notices

what does this mean? let say 10 'illegal' downloads in one day, will you receive all 3 notices at once or this will be sent in the next 3 months?

As far as I understand it

You can only get one notice at a time. But there will be a gap of 30 days between each notice.

It's up to the ISP to send the notices, all the anti piracy organisations do is contact the ISP who your ip address is assigned with and tell them the ip address XXX.XXX.XX.XX has downloaded X. The ISP will then send the correct notice to the Customer who was assigned that Ip address.

I'm not sure whether after your first notice, the ISP will keep any further notices until the end of the 30 days or whether the ISP will just discard any further allegations until the 30 days are up.

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 411

ID Verified

Trusted

#522501 17-Sep-2011 23:31

that covers p2p and rights holders claims

The law doesn't say P2P specify but it the easiest for them to go after torrent users.

alexcc

154 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#522504 17-Sep-2011 23:43

LennonNZ:

that covers p2p and rights holders claims

The law doesn't say P2P specify but it the easiest for them to go after torrent users.

Searching around shows that everywhere says that this law is intended for p2p.

"InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) has obtained clarification from the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) that the intention of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 is to cover copyright infringement by online file sharing using peer-to-peer protocols only."

"On April 14th, 2011, New Zealand Parliament passes piracy bill which bans the peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing of Copyright Material on the Internet in New Zealand."

"New legislation is to be introduced into the New Zealand parliament in early 2010 to implement a new three notice regime to combat copyright infringement from peer to peer (P2P) file sharing over the internet. The government wants the legislation enacted by July 2010 and in force by the beginning of 2011."

Haven't looked at the actual law myself but I'm pretty sure it was meant to counter peer to peer.

kiwigeek1

637 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#522511 17-Sep-2011 23:51

lol - see everyone is cnfused still thats my point and
yeh im sure the p2p mentioned in the documents says it all
and the exceptions to cache servers which have another name which I forgot

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 411

ID Verified

Trusted

#522516 18-Sep-2011 00:00

The law says the below.

Remember that nothing of this has been tested in court yet . Techncially a web server could pass under (a) and (b). And the internet could be seen under (a) and (b) as well.

file sharing is where—

“(a) material is uploaded via, or downloaded from, the Internet using an application or network that enables the simultaneous sharing of material between multiple users; and

“(b) uploading and downloading may, but need not, occur at the same time

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#522528 18-Sep-2011 02:36

Anyone seen this before? What do you think?

New Zealand’s Illegal File-Sharing Law Takes Effect

Seems that Labour has decided this law is a Bad Idea and will repeal it (sources?). Apparently, the UN doesn't like it either deeming it to be "a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights".

Seems that National's little mafia-style law making experiment is drawing embarrassment - as well it should...

... What legitimate Government sneaks a guilty-until-proven-innocent bill in at mid night - without public debate, injects it into earthquake proceedings, accepts money from a foreign government to enact it, make false claimants immune, and then has the bald faced cheek to present it to the people as something the people wanted? After the previous attempt was protested?!?!

It's like a B-grade political thriller from the '80's.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41044

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#522529 18-Sep-2011 02:54

The law was created and introduced by Labour's Judith Tizard.

Any attempt by Labour to "repeal" the law is just a way to try to play to people's short memory and ignorance.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#522534 18-Sep-2011 07:28

Seen this.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10752517

Seems like either the newspaper is behind the times, or those claiming to have received notices are lying. As asked before, anyone care to actually post a copy of the notice so we can all see it?

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#522537 18-Sep-2011 08:10

Labour only plans to drop the disconnection clause, not the whole law.

Labour knows Judith Tizard made a bad move (back room deal), just look at her position now, active blocked from being in government.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6